From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NyjE4-0000ws-2H for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 10:08:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C877E09E1; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37DDE098E for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296351B406C for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:07:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.061 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.061 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyn5v00iDTFO for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28351B402E for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:07:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NyjDM-0006QU-Uf for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:07:29 +0200 Received: from liten.csbnet.se ([95.80.45.96]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:07:28 +0200 Received: from xake by liten.csbnet.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:07:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Peter Hjalmarsson Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should we disable RESOLVED LATER from bugzilla? Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:07:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1270462035.21279.13.camel@lillen> References: <4BB70F5E.7010101@gentoo.org> <1270428898.19463.6.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: liten.csbnet.se In-Reply-To: <1270428898.19463.6.camel@localhost> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.0.1 X-Archives-Salt: 02476b3d-7750-434b-aab7-ae6901115752 X-Archives-Hash: 8d428be01655fd8cc6d6f57617ad79e7 m=C3=A5n 2010-04-05 klockan 03:54 +0300 skrev Mart Raudsepp: > The problem is really the RESOLVED connotation and the hiding that goes > along with that on searches, etc. >=20 > The LATER status itself can be useful when used properly (more as > "ASSIGNED LATER"). In the lack of that some bigger teams might need to > think of other methods to get things meant for LATER out of main views > of huge bug lists. Actually I think this is the best yet. I have always found the sounding of RESOLVED LATER so harsh. ASSIGNED LATER would more sound like we know there is a problem, and we know it should be fixed, but we cannot do it now for different reasons.